🚀 go-pugleaf

jonathan@psych.psy.uq.oz.au (Jonathan Dwyer) writes:

[...]
>This raises the question:  Should there be easy targets available, i.e.
>should AARNet allow a few controversial newsgroups to remain, which
>may then be 'sacrificed' in case of trouble.....or.....should AARNet remove
>such newsgroups in the hope of avoiding media attention to begin with?
[...]

Experience shows that such appeasement doesn't work. Almost every
newsgroup offends someone. If it is known that complaints will result
of newsgroup suppression, then complaints will continue, and continue,
and continue. (At Stanford U., rec.humor.funny was banned).

The best strategy for a network to do say that it is like the
telephone company; it just connects point A to point B and doesn't
monitor content. The parties communicating have responsibility
for content.

The best strategy for a University is to what libraries do: create an
explicit anticensorship policy. I'm enclosing four examples, two from
the U.S. and two from Canada.

- Carl

============= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/netnews.uwm.edu =====
These are the network policy resolutions developed by the Computer
Policy Committee at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The
resolutions were approved by the Committee and forwarded to the
Chancellor.

Provided by Alan Baron, ab@csd4.csd.uwm.edu.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolutions Approved by the Computer Policy Committee
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
February 21, 1992


               Recommendation from the Computer Policy Committee    
                     on Access to Network News Systems



Background

      Users of the UWM central computer facility (faculty, staff, students)
have access to the network news system, a set of newsgroups concerned with a
wide variety of topics. Members of these groups engage in exchanges of
information on matters of common interest, such as computing, scientific
issues, social and cultural topics, the environment, politics, hobbies,
recreational pursuits, and so forth. This system is the product of a loosely
organized and largely unregulated network which now includes sites throughout
the world. If a site is linked to the network, users can transmit and receive 
messages to and from other sites. There is no central repository for these
articles--they are passed automatically from site to site so that a news
article generated at a particular locale will eventually replicate itself to
network-connected news systems at distant locations. 

      Although the news network has become a valuable resource for university
communities all over the world, objections are raised from time to time
about the content of the messages and articles. These objections range
from complaints that some of the material is frivolous and unrelated to
serious academic pursuits to complaints that certain sexually-oriented
material is obscene or pornographic. Moreover, there have been instances in
which administrators at other Universities have responded to such complaints
by terminating or restricting access to the news network. Unfortunately, such
actions usually have been taken unilaterally, that is, without consultation
with appropriate faculty and student groups.

      Censorship of the news network is not presently an issue here at UWM nor
do we wish to imply that the administration would act in an arbitrary manner
should the issue arise. Nevertheless, the Computer Policy Committee believes
that it would be useful to have a policy in place which would govern access to
and participation in the news network. The four resolutions below are
intended to express such a policy.

RESOLUTION #1

      Resolved: That full recognition and support be given to the valuable
resource provided by the network news system. 

      Rationale: Electronic transmission of information is playing an
increasingly vital role in higher education. This new technology provides a
unique vehicle for the participation of the university community in the 
world-wide exchange of ideas.

RESOLUTION #2

      Resolved: That any action by the UWM administration that might restrict
access to the news network should be contemplated only after consultation
with the Computer Policy Committee and other appropriate faculty bodies. 

      Rationale: Such consultation is required by the principle of faculty
governance at UWM.

RESOLUTION #3

      Resolved: That the same standards and principles of intellectual and
academic freedom developed for university libraries be applied to material
received from the news network.

      Rationale: Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge
and the pursuit of truth, and it has come to be widely accepted that
censorship of library material on partisan or doctrinal grounds is contrary to
these goals. The many similarities of the print and electronic media require
similar standards concerning access to messages and articles received from 
from the news network.

RESOLUTION #4

      Resolved: That the same standards of intellectual and academic freedom
developed for faculty and student publication in traditional media be applied
to publication in computer media.

      Rationale. Messages and articles posted to a newsgroup have many of
the features of a publication. They constitute a means of formulating and
conveying knowledge, including statements of belief and opinion, to the
the university community and to the world at large. Communications to the
the network that originate on this campus should be free of any form of
censorship or prior restraint.

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =

============= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/stanford.edu =====

From comp.org.eff.talk Fri Nov  2 01:32:32 1990
Path: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!unixhub!shelby!neon!Neon!jmc
From: jmc@Gang-of-Four.usenet (John McCarthy)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Censorship on the USENET
Message-ID: <JMC.90Nov1213832@Gang-of-Four.usenet>
Date: 2 Nov 90 05:38:32 GMT
References: <RMZ.90Oct20170121@gode.uio.no>
	<1990Oct21.141502.26557@hoss.unl.edu>
	<1990Oct31.141646.25350@ifi.uio.no>
	<1990Nov01.064916.19218@looking.on.ca> <BZS.90Nov1195146@world.std.com>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Distribution: comp
Organization: /u/jmc/.organization
Lines: 77
In-Reply-To: bzs@world.std.com's message of 2 Nov 90 00:51:46 GMT

In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers.  After a campaign it was re-installed
in those computers.  It was never suppressed in the Computer
Science Department's computers.  There follow two relevant
documents.  The first is self-explanatory, and the second
came about through the following sequence of events.
(1) Donald Kennedy, Stanford's President, told the Academic
Senate that he supported the suppression but would defer to
the Senate.

(2) The Senate Steering Committee asked the Committee on Libraries
for a general policy recommendation on how to treat electronic
newsgroups.  Referring the issue to the Committee on Libraries
indicated what kind of issue the Steering Committee thought was
involved.

(3) The Committee on Libraries made the statement given below.

(4) The Steering Committee asked the Vice-President for Information
Resources (i.e. the boss of the computer centers) whether
he preferred to back down and re-establish rec.humor.funny
or have the matter discussed by the full Senate.

(5) He backed down somewhat grumpily.

The following statement was passed unanimously at a meeting
of the Computer Science Department faculty of Stanford
University on Tuesday, Feb 21, 1989.

Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny.

Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries.  The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries.  These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.

Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries.  For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers.  We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library.  To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
Censorship is not an appropriate tool for preventing or dealing
with offensive behavior.

We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny.  The Computer Science Department has also decided
not to censor Department Computers.

*****

Here's something else - a statement by the Stanford faculty
committee on libraries.

Office Memo, Stanford University Libraries
~date: April 12, 1989
To: The Steering Committee of the Academic Senate via Arthur Coladarci
~From: Joan Krasner, Secretary, C-Lib
The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the April 10th meeting
of C-Lib which considered the matter of computer bulletin boards on campus.
The Preamble to the Statement on Academic Freedom (1974) states that
``Expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged, free
from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion.''
It is the view of the Academic Council Committee on Libraries that this
statement pertains to materials received on computer bulletin boards on
campus.  Acquisition and access to information in new forms should be
subject only to financial limits and other standard criteria of collection
such as the useful life of the materials, storage capacity, etc.
- approved by Academic Council Commmittee on Libraries, April 10, 1989.
XC: Gerald Gillespie

=======
From comp.org.eff.talk Sun Oct 21 15:11:04 1990
Path: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!iuvax!cica!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!unixhub!shelby!neon!Neon!jmc
From: jmc@Gang-of-Four.usenet (John McCarthy)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Censorship on the USENET
Message-ID: <JMC.90Oct21115643@Gang-of-Four.usenet>
Date: 21 Oct 90 18:56:43 GMT
References: <RMZ.90Oct20170121@gode.uio.no> <21282@well.sf.ca.us>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Distribution: comp
Organization: /u/jmc/.organization
Lines: 17
In-Reply-To: mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us's message of 21 Oct 90 15:07:08 GMT

The cost saving in suppressing a particular newsgroup are trivial.
At Stanford they were probably negative, since personnel time went
into it.

We won the restoration by the following means:

1. There were faculty and student petitions on the subject, mostly
from computer science people.

2. There was only one strong-minded bad guy and he was rather
perfunctory in his "off with its head" decree.

3. The Academic Senate Steering Committee was persuaded to refer
the issue to the faculty committee on libraries.  This committee
came up with a statement to the effect that the policy of an
electronic library should be the same as that of a print library -
universality tempered only by cost.

============= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/utoronto.ca =====
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
From: pkern@utcs.utoronto.ca (pkern)
Subject:  U of Toronto reaction
Message-ID: <1992Jun16.045026.15800@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 04:50:26 GMT


_The Bulletin_
University of Toronto
June 8, 1992

page 1.


Network Pornography Elicits Little Reaction at U of T

By Karina Dahlin

   U of T is not planning to intercept or censor the international
computer network, Internet, that carries among its thousands of files
a couple that contain violent pornographic material.
   Material of this nature has been available for a long time and
University of Toronto Computing Services has not received any
complaints about it, said associate director Eugene Siciunas.
   Last month the University of Manitoba cut off access to a file
called "sex-bondage."  Terry Falconer, vice-president (administration),
said in an interview that complaints about the material were made to
the news media and recounted to him.  The Winnipeg police department
told Canadian Press that anyone distributing material that depicts
violence against women and children may be prosecuted.  Although the
police paid a visit to the university, Falconer does not expect them
to take any action.
   Falconer has not received any direct complaints about his action
but has heard it is being compared to censorship.  That is not the
way he sees it.  "We don't make such material available in the
bookstore or the library either."  If anyone wishes to study the
restricted file, the university will provide access to it, he said.
   Like a bookstore, Internet offers a multitude of reading material
arranged in categories such as science, sociology and miscellaneous.
The file banned in Winnipeg and one listed as "sex-bestiality" are
available under the heading "alternatives."  To open any of the files
people must push certain keys on their keyboard.
   If the material were to be intercepted at U of T, it would
probably be on the order of David Sadleir, vice-president (computing
and communications).  Such action seems unlikely.  "I am not a
censor," said Sadleir in an interview.  Not knowing the details about
the case at the University of Manitoba, he did not wish to pass
judgement on it.
  Sadleir's view is that if a recipient has to actively select
information, there is no need for U of T to take action.  If, on the
other hand, the messages are flashed across the screen without user
consent, his response would be "very aggressive" regardless of the
content.  Such practice could be described as invasion of people's
privacy, he said.
   A couple of months ago, U of T was asked by other Canadian
universities to help trace the source of some pornographic computer
material, Sadleir said.  The site was identified as a large US
university.  While it is possible to block access to an institution
that transmits offensive material, this would also restrict access to
useful information, he added.
   What constitutes proper use of computer networks is the source of
much debate.  Although the topic is mentioned in various codes of
conduct and user policies at the University, no one has yet
formulated a policy that addresses all concerns.  "I'm looking forward
to someone coming up with the definitive statement but I haven't seen
one yet," Sadleir said.  "It's a complex reality, one that's going to
plague us for a while."
   ONet, one of the thousands of networks that form and carry
Internet, should not be blamed for the contents of the messages that
individual users post, says John Drake, assistant vice-president
(computing and information services) at McMaster University and chair
of the management board of ONet.  The Ontario-wide research and
education network is a carrier, not a provider or publisher of
information and its managers should not decide which material is
proper to transmit, Drake said in an interview.
  ONet is an association, not a government-regulated carrier as is
Bell Canada.  But like a phone company it provides a service with the
view that "what you do with the phone is up to you," said Drake.

			===== =====
[ page 2: from the mast-head ]

The Bulletin
Published every two weeks by the Department of Public Affairs,
21 King's College Circle, 2nd floor,
University of Toronto, Toronto, M5S 1A1.

Material may be reprinted in whole or in part with appropriate
credit to _The Bulletin_.
			===== =====

============= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/waterloo.edu =====
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1074 alt.censorship:1755
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [repost] Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.153000.29957@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct3.172138.338@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 15:30:00 GMT

[This is the announcement and report from Dr. Johnny Wong, Associate
Provost (Computing and Information Systems). - Carl]

After reviewing the report of the Advisory Committee on 
Network News, and the comments that I've received, I am 
proceeding in accordance with the recommendations of that 
committee. Newsgroups that are currently not supported
will be reinstated as soon as possible, and Roger Watt 
of the Department of Computing Services (ext. 2491; 
email: rwwatt@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) has been
appointed as a liaison person with respect to complaints 
related to the contents of electronic mail messages and 
news articles.
                           - - - - - - - - - -

               REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NETWORK NEWS

                                 MAY 30, 1991

INTRODUCTION

A. Universities have a long tradition of investigating all areas of human
activity and of sharing the results of those inquiries with others inside and
outside the University who may be interested. The recent growth of
communication networks for computers have made the sharing much more rapid and
efficient. Arguably, the two most effective means for making these results
available, and thus potentially for advancing the works of many other members
of the University community, are electronic mail (E-mail) to individuals and
network newsgroups, the latter functioning rather like collective mailboxes to
which faculty, staff, and students may choose to subscribe.

Thus, the Committee believes that it is entirely appropriate that the
University of Waterloo, which has a strong reputation for the constructive use
of computers, continue to allocate resources to receiving, storing, and
transmitting items of E-mail and news.

B. Further, the Committee believes that it is important that the University of
Waterloo consult its user community when decisions must be made about the use
of resources which are committed to E-mail and news.

C. Most importantly, the Committee believes that it is the users of the
computing systems who must be held responsible for their decisions to take
advantage of the resources which the University of Waterloo maintains for the
general use of its community. The Committee notes that in some cases items have
been posted which contain lengthy and verbatim excerpts from newspapers, books,
and magazines. Even when the source is fully acknowledged, the Committee
believes that this acknowledgement is not a substitute for a formal release
from the holder of the copyright in the material, usually the publisher if not
the author of the cited words. Thus, in advising users of the responsibility
they bear for what they post, the Committee considers it important that a
warning that the University will not be held liable for breach of copyright be
made plain.

D. Although the University of Waterloo is not under an obligation to distribute
news across campus, once the key role of the user is recognized, the Committee
sees no role for the institution `in loco parentis'. In particular, we see no
need for a Committee, even of one, to monitor the contents of items, noting
that the current daily volume of approximately 11 megabytes arriving at the
University makes such monitoring impractical.

E. Again, once the key role of the users of computing resources is established,
the Committee is of the opinion that the University of Waterloo already has a
number of mechanisms in place for handling queries or complaints should they
arise. The Committee sees no need to duplicate these mechanisms.

The Committee believes that complaints should be dealt with in the same manner
whether the offending items originate from UW or from a remote site. It is
clear that a user may reply directly to a poster and may make a more formal
complaint under UW policies in parallel. In either case, the channels normally
used for handling complaints from UW accounts should be used for those arising
from off-campus posting.

However, the nature of electronic communication is such that action often needs
to be more rapid than in dealing with, for example, printed material. The
Committee, therefore, suggests one addition to the existing mechanisms.

In its background documents, Usenet identifies users as responsible for their
actions just as the Committee has suggested the University of Waterloo should.
As a consequence, it is natural for one user who objects to an item posted by
another to reply directly and outline his or her complaint. Such direct reply
is often effective, but does assume enough familiarity with the reply mechanism
of newsgroups or with E-mail on the part of the offended user. A simple
description of each of these processes should be a standard part of the
introduction to computing provided to each new user, whose responsibility it
must be to assimilate the information; the University of Waterloo already
provides very substantial consulting advice, widely distributed across campus,
to assist users in making effective use of the University's computing
resources.

It seems clear that users should retain copies of both the item which was the
source of the objection and of the reply. Such electronic copies carry date and
time 'stamps' which may be useful should a more extensive discussion of the
item prove necessary.

Where the initial item originates from a member of the University of Waterloo,
then the provisions of existing policies should, of course, be available. The
Committee notes that the authors of the report from the Ad Hoc Committee to
Review UW Policy 33 on Ethical Behavior, chaired by Lois Claxton, already
anticipated the extension of the provisions of Policy 33 to cover the area of
computing (IV Recommendations, page 10, first paragraph).

However, electronic items may originate from other sites and it may be
impractical for a user to object directly; furthermore, direct reply may be
ineffective. Only in such situations can the Committee foresee the desirability
of there being a person, designated by the University of Waterloo, to whom
application may be made for assistance.

In recommending such an appointment, the Committee does not envisage such an
official being responsible for dealing with objections from one member of the
University about the actions of another. Nor does it see the official acting as
the 'agent' of an aggrieved user.

RECOMMENDATIONS

On the question of the use of resources and the responsibility of users, the
Committee recommends that:

1. The principles which are adopted by the University of Waterloo governing the
use of its computing facilities for storing, retrieving and transmitting
information, be widely disseminated and be included in all introductions to
computing for new users. Particular emphasis should be placed on the principles
which concern such direct methods of communication as E-mail and network news.

2. The University of Waterloo adopt and widely publicize the principle that, in
sending E-mail or in posting an article to a newsgroup, it is the user and not
the University, who assumes responsibility for its contents.

3. The University adopt and widely publicize the principle that it is the user,
not the University, who is responsible for his or her decision to read a mail
message or an article posted to an electronic newsgroup.

4. The University's primary news-server continue to receive all newsgroups
generated internally and all newsgroups which arrive over the networks to which
the University is connected.

5. The contents of these newsgroups continue to be made available to all lower
level servers.

6. When decisions are to be made re the consumption of computing resources for
newsgroups, those responsible for such decisions should widely and formally
consult with the full user community. In the case of the primary server, it
should be the responsibility of the University Computing Committee to see that
such consultation takes place. In the case of lower level servers, a
well-defined consultative process, approved by the University Computing
Committee, should exist.

On the question of responding to particular items of mail or news, the
Committee recommends that:

1. The University of Waterloo advise its user community that in the first
instance it is the responsibility, not of the University, but of a user who
objects to an item, to reply directly to the poster, making clear the nature of
the objection.

2. A person knowledgeable, particularly about electronic news and mail, but
also well-versed in the general provisions of UW policies, be appointed with
the following general terms of reference:

   He or she should:

   (A) Be able to identify a suitable authority at a remote site to whom a
   request for action might be addressed, when he or she is convinced that
   the normal methods for registering an objection have been ineffective. An
   obvious example would be the continued posting of objectionable items.

   (B) Be able to identify the most suitable authority at the University of
   Waterloo to which objections from other sites about material generated at
   the University of Waterloo might be referred. Examples of such authorities
   are the Ethics Committee, the University Computing Committee, the Dean of a
   Faculty; these examples clearly do not exhaust the possibilities.

3. Such an official should report at least once a year on his or her activity
in this area to the University Computing Committee through the Associate
Provost, Computing and Information Systems.

4. The responsibility for the removal of any item from a UW machine, as a
result of an investigation into a complaint, should reside with the Associate
Deans of Computing in each Faculty for machines under their control, and with
the corresponding officers responsible for non-Faculty machines, and with the
Associate Provost, Computing and Information Systems. The Committee presumes
that investigations and decisions will be carried out under University of
Waterloo policies and that where review by a Committee is called for, such
review will be carried out keeping in mind the short retention time for items
in newsgroups.

5. The University of Waterloo's principles or policies in this area clearly
identify the officers who are able to make such decisions.

6. At least once a year actions taken under this authority should be reported
to the University Computing Committee.

The Committee has not made suggestions about how the recommendations should be
implemented in any unit, academic or non-academic. The Committee presumes that
the University of Waterloo will continue to publicize its policies and
procedures which, in turn, will continue to be developed after careful
consultation with the University community. However, the Committee wishes to
point out that if the University of Waterloo appoints an official to assist
users in responding to particular items as has been recommended, then that
official should not also be asked to be responsible for removing items from
circulation; in the Committee's view the two functions conflict directly.

Submitted by:

Greg Bennett, Chair                 Paul Check
Ian Gibson                          Anil Goel
John Moore                          Vic Neglia
Roger Watt, Resource Person         Bud Walker
Nancy Zinatelli
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.



-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =